Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

File:Dine dating app official logo.jpeg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UE, OR. It was used only in one article, Dine (app), which I've just deleted after someone speedy-tagged it as advertising. Not a copyright problem (it's obviously PD-textlogo), but it's useless without this article. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kennard Santas Grotto.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused, likely no encyclopedic use. Kelly ^hi! 08:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I thought this had been used in the Peter Kennard article. I've added it now, so your deletion nomination no longer applies. Sionk (talk) 10:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: If it's copyrighted artwork, it should need a non-free use rationale. Kelly ^hi! 11:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kelly: It is described as his "definitive work of art about the [Iraq] war" - will that be sufficient for a non-free rationale? Or maybe you are determined to delete it at all costs ;) Sionk (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sionk: No I'd be happy if it could be retained, it's just that it may need to be licensed as {{non-free 3D art}} with accompanying rationale. Kelly ^hi! 09:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:William-sears.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. I've nominated the Commons file for deletion. Deryck C. 13:17, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent file at Commons Commons:File:Уильям Сирз.jpg was considered PD. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sfan00 IMG The copyright status of the Commons file is questionable, seeing as there is no source or author information that would justify the template. The subject has been with us on Earth recently enough that I would not just assume that PD-Old applies without proof. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to local retention provided someone queries the sitatuon at Commons :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Whittard of Chelsea.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep locally and contest PD status of Commons file. Deryck C. 13:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent file at Commons was considered to be below Threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned that the modification on the dot may push it above TOO in the United Kingdom, which seems to be the source country. In that case the Commons file may be deletion-worthy seeing as even minimal modifications to standard typeface were considered to be copyrightable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:White Airways logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent file at commons Commons:File:White Logo.png was considered to be below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a Portuguese work, are we sure it's PD there? The local file can be relicensed though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Westonaprice2.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 6#File:Westonaprice2.JPG}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Western Airlines.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent file at Commons was considered to lie below the threshold of originality and is tagged as such. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WestLB.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons equivalent of this file was considered to lie below Threshold of originality and was tagged accordingly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Wendell & Vinnie Title Screen.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The commons upload of this file is tagged as simple, meaning that it was apparently considered to be below the threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WebGL Logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons equivalent of this file is tagged as simple, meanign that it was thought to be below the threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan00 IMG, thanks for bringing this to my attention. I do not know under what copyright terms to mark the image as. Khronos states its requirements here: https://www.khronos.org/legal/trademarks/. Given this link and info, what should I re-upload as? Free on commons? I have a new SVG version from Khronos. Thanks! JC713 (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an official version that Khronos can release under a suitable 'free' license, then contact OTRS. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The terms in question are here and basically say they’re cool with fair use: Companies or individuals that are not members of Khronos and who wish to use a Mark for promotional or educational purposes NOT in association with a specific implementation of a Khronos Specification are welcome to use Marks under the publicly posted Khronos Trademark Usage Guidelines. Those usage guidelines essentially say: don’t modify the logo, use a simple contrasting background, and use the SVG version wherever possible. Not sure if any of that’s relevant here, though. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about originality here - commons:COM:TOO notes that File:CarCreditCity.png is considered PD but a modified variant with additional text and a border is not. This logo seems to fall midway between the two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: That logo isn't copyrightable. I have gone ahead and replaced the logo on WebGL with the Commons logo. Could you delete this one as well as File:WebGL Logo.svg as F8? Thanks. --Majora (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WWE SmackDown Live 2016 logo.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The commons upload of this logo, is tagged a simple. I'mm not seeing anything obvious locally that would suggest otherwise. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sfan00 IMG, thanks for letting me know. In the wikipedia file, I noted the copyright information in the file upload but the Commons upload wasn't done by me and it shouldn't say that it is created by whomever uploaded it there Daboyle250 (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WTA Championships 2011 logo.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons equivalent Commons:File:Logo BNP Paribas WTA Championships 2011.jpg tagged as simple, meaning it was thought to be below threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the country of origin? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:WEG Equipamentos Elétricos.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons upload of this logo, is tagged as simple. I'm not seeing anything obvious on the local copy which would suggest anything complex. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is essentially textlogo. Move to Commons. OAlexander (talk) 13:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC) (author/uploader)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Villeroy & Boch logo.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons equivalent of this logo, is tagged as simple, meaning it was felt to be below the threshold of originality. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Viktoria Allenstein.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Deryck Chan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commons upload of this logo was tagged as simple. I'm not seeing anything complex in the local copy that would suggest otherwise. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Allenstein is somewhere in the former German east that is now either Russia or Poland and the institution ceased to exist. Wikipedia Absurdism at max. Move it. OAlexander (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dragon Blaze.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: F6 no longer applies, as rationale is now in place Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Was F6 , but the uploader removed the Tag. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what exactly is the problem. Could you fix it so I'll see? --PiXXeL777 (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Thecustomoflifegraduation.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image seems to be unused other than on a talk page. FFD because it's claimed as self, even though the nominal uploader is the subject of the photo. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tidewithbleach.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. The subject of this image is a packaging artwork, and so may be non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Jubileestreetparty.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FFD referall as this image was claimed to be with permission, but seems to have been uploaded prior to the current OTRS system. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would be willing to convert this to 'non-free' use, owing to the historic situation it depicts.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; when our standards change, we don't start deleting or restricting the usage of images that were permitted before the change. Unless there was reason to believe the permission claim to be a hoax, this image wouldn't have been deleted or restricted in 2005, and there's no reason to do anything differently now, unless there's new evidence that the permission claim is a hoax. Nyttend (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the image could be moved to Commons under the provisions of Commons:Commons:Grandfathered old files. Kelly ^hi! 13:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This image is now grandfathered in at Commons - Kept on Commons, F8 locallySfan00 IMG (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:View from St Augustine Penarth.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused local version of File:View from St. Augustines church, Penarth (geograph 1945916).jpg. I'm unsure why the local file size is different; I downloaded the highest resolution available from Geograph for the Commons file. Kelly ^hi! 11:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete as I was not aware of the Commons file when this was uploaded. We hope (talk) 14:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:University of South Florida seal.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete as orphan. No indictment about copyright status. Deryck C. 13:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an image of a seal in sculptural form, As the US does not have freedom of panorama, the subject of this image may be subject to 'non-free' rules, This image is however unused currently. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How old is that seal? I see a few non-free seal files but I am not certain if they are accurately licensed - if 1956 is the date of adoption of the seal (=publication date almost certainly) {{PD-US-no notice}} may apply. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:40, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Usftowerfrompalm.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Majora (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technically unsourced, most likely an uploader image but it's from way back in 2005, and the ulpoader may have left the project. Image is currently unused. FFD rather than CSD owing to the age of the upload. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; we didn't originally require a source print citation/link/{{own}}, and if I remember rightly, we hadn't yet started requiring it when this image was uploaded. Of course, if you can provide contrary documentation, I'll yield. Nyttend (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep EXIF consistent with their other uploads File:Usfbetahall.JPG and File:Tiffanyandco.JPG which are marked as self.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Moshling1.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, appears to be derivative of copyrighted character. Kelly ^hi! 11:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Double-insulated-symbol.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: change to {{PD-simple}}. Deryck C. 13:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CC-BY-SA, but this is a simple standard symbol rendering. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mu Yes, but does it matter whether it's licensed as {{PD-simple}} or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}? There are dozens of freely licensed files out there where copyrightability is questionable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Saint Nicholas' Church, Ghent growth over time.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused derivative work of three Commons files. Kelly ^hi! 16:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; no problems, and a useful illustration of architectural history. Unused isn't relevant, because this can easily be transferred to Commons, where the file's used or unused status doesn't matter one bit. No copyright problems; one image is availbeunder a free license (and used properly), while the others are in the public domain. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Sacramento Kings alternate logo.svg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Relisted on Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 November 6#File:Sacramento_Kings_alternate_logo.svg}}

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Temple College logo (B&W).jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Cryptic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to host two copies of the non-free logo of Temple College. This one's rationale states "To serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question," but is being displayed in a gallery (which is against WP:NFG) while the color logo (Image:Temple College logo (color).jpg) is in the infobox. ★ Bigr Tex 21:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I first found the black-and-white one, and then found the color one. If you want to delete the black-and-white one, knock yourself out. I'll take it off the webpage now. TuckerResearch (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.